Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Konstrukta validitāte kompjuterizētajā adaptīvajā testēšanā (CAT)× | Apstiprinošā faktoru analīze (AFA)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare | Psihometrija | Psihometrija |
| Saime | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 1989–2000s | 1969 |
| Autors≠ | Samuel Messick (unified validity framework); CAT application formalized by Wainer, van der Linden, and colleagues | Karl Gustav Jöreskog |
| Tips≠ | Validity evaluation / psychometric evidence gathering | Hypothesis-testing latent variable model |
| Pirmavots≠ | Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education / Macmillan. link ↗ | Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202. DOI ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi | CAT construct validity, adaptive test construct validation, CAT validity evidence, construct validity evidence in CAT | CFA, confirmatory FA, measurement model, restricted factor analysis |
| Saistītās≠ | 6 | 4 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | Construct validity in computerized adaptive testing evaluates whether the latent trait estimates produced by a CAT instrument genuinely measure the intended psychological or educational construct. Because adaptive algorithms select items individually for each examinee, the validity evidence gathered must account for the variable item exposure and the IRT-based scoring that are unique to CAT administrations. | Confirmatory factor analysis tests a researcher-specified factor structure against observed data. Unlike exploratory approaches, the researcher decides in advance which indicators load on which latent factor, and the model is evaluated by how closely the implied covariance matrix reproduces the sample covariance matrix. CFA is central to scale validation, construct validity assessment, and measurement invariance testing. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|